House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was friend.

Last in Parliament May 2004, as Liberal MP for Halton (Ontario)

Won his last election, in 2000, with 47% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Speech From The Throne February 29th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, I did not know I had any time left.

I appreciate the words of my hon. friend but I point out to him that Israel is probably not the best choice in the world, if we consider that Israel is now surrounded by the enemy. There are those outside of Israel who are determined that no peace shall ever exist there.

This is precisely what I was trying to say when I talked about my grandfather five times removed leaving Ireland, to get away from the strife and come to a land of peace.

I understand that the separatists in Quebec consider themselves a political minority and they believe that decisions taken in the interests of Canada go against them. However, I believe if together we are looking for the greater good of the whole, we will all realize that the decisions of the House in which Quebec has an very important role to play, are not only good for Canada but are good for Quebec as well.

That is where I think we part company. I am rapidly becoming a minority in Canada. If we go to Toronto-

Speech From The Throne February 29th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for sharing his time this afternoon.

The throne speech has charted a course for the next two years, the remainder of the term in this House. It has dwelt in a number of areas. First, it has had something to say about the accomplishments of the government to date and significant accomplishments they have been. It has also had something to say about one of the most perplexing and what should be the most important issues of concern that we have to deal with at the present time, the issue of Canada and Canadian unity.

I have listened for the last two years to the Bloc and the speeches that have been made in this House. I heard the remainder of a very impassioned speech this afternoon by the hon. member for Mercier. If I am wrong, I stand to be corrected but what I seem to detect so often from some members of the Bloc is an underlying belief that Quebec cannot exist within the framework of Canada because Quebecers somehow do not have the self-confidence nor the strength to preserve their society within that framework.

From the very beginning, built into the framework we call Canada are the elements to protect that society, to protect the language, the culture and of course the Napoleonic civil law. Those things together are part of what naturally make Quebec a distinct society. That is why the government has endorsed such a move to recognize what actually exists, what already is.

I am always perplexed when I feel, perhaps wrongly, that at least some members of the Bloc do not feel confident within that framework. I ask them and I ask Quebecers to consider what life would be like without those protections that are built into the framework we now call Canada.

It seems from an emotional perspective that one could isolate oneself even more and build a wall around a very small country. However the world is not made like that any more. We communicate instantly to every part of the globe. We trade virtually

instantly to every part of the globe. Money changes hands from hour to hour. The sun never sets on the economies of our countries.

I seriously ask those members who wish for separation if they really believe in the long run that they will enjoy the protection of their language, culture and law that they enjoy in the framework we call Canada.

Canada is made up of distinct societies. I visited one a couple of weeks ago and had a wonderful time. It has a distinct language and culture and unless the people speak very slowly I cannot understand them. However they are a very confident and proud people. They exist within the framework of Canada. They are our friends in Newfoundland. If we take the trouble to travel to other parts of Canada we will find other very distinct societies all living within that same framework.

Last summer I had the privilege of travelling into central Quebec. My wife and I went there partly on a bit of a holiday and partly on a pilgrimage. We drove along the north shore to the Saguenay and up the Saguenay and stopped at Baie Trinité to scatter my brother's ashes. He spent the happiest years of his life sailing on the cruise ships on the Saguenay. We went on up to Lac-Saint-Jean and Chicoutimi. We stayed in Chicoutimi and then went on to Roberval and down the long highway to Shawinigan and back home again.

I realized one thing. The geographical isolation of that area separates it very much from other parts of the country. It is unfortunate that many of the young people there do not have the opportunity to move, to visit, to exchange with young people in other parts of the country. If they did there would be a new and revitalized realization that we are all in this country together. We built it together. Quebecers have as much ownership of British Columbia and Alberta as other Canadians have in Quebec.

We have travelled a long distance together, not without our difficulties and not without our arguments in the family and so on. But now we have an opportunity to look to the future together and to move on. The destruction of one part of us produces something less in the rest.

With Quebec, with Newfoundland, with the Arctic and all other parts of Canada, we make the greatest distinct society in the world. With all of our differences, but also with all of our common goals, we all want the same things. We want fulfilment in our lives. We want a roof over our heads. We want to be able to have three square meals a day and to be able to raise our children in safety and in confidence. We want to attend the church of our choice or indulge in the religion of our choice without interference, without anyone coming along and saying we cannot do that.

Those are common aspirations of all people in the world. Sometimes they get clouded with history or with the visions of

history or the perceptions of history, sometimes true, sometimes untrue, sometimes twisted.

My first ancestor in this country came from Ireland. He was a Protestant living in the south of Ireland. Talk about being on the wrong side of the railway tracks. The troubles that existed in 1834 continue to assail that land today, in 1996. He made a conscious decision to leave that strife behind him.

He was being terrorized. His cattle were killed. His life was threatened and so on. He left with his wife and five children and came to the wilds of Canada. He lost his wife to cholera on Grosse Isle, a place I hope to visit in a very few weeks.

I have his diary. He made a conscious decision to put the past behind him and to put the old emnities, which have held that country back for hundreds of years, away and come to Canada, a new land where he could find fulfilment and partnership with the people he met.

I make a plea to my friends in the Bloc. The time has come to make a conscious decision to put the past behind, to join hands and to move together because together we are much stronger than pieces separated and scattered. We can do far more as a family, as a team, than we can as strangers.

Quebec is very special to me in many ways. I spent some years in Montreal as a child. Montreal was a thriving city at that time. I was disappointed to see it again and how it has declined.

We can talk about the politics of blame. We can blame the federal government. We can blame somebody else and all the rest of it. The time has come to make that conscious choice to move ahead. If we do, we can only be the richer for it.

Recognition Of Quebec As A Distinct Society December 11th, 1995

Madam Speaker, if the Clerk would check, he would find that the hon. member for Halifax West is not here in his seat but the hon. member for Halton-Peel is.

Canadian Unity October 24th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, as the referendum date draws near I would like to acknowledge a package received from a grade 13 politics class at Mayfield Secondary School in the riding I serve. Not only have over 450 students signed a petition stating the importance of Canada's unity, they have also put together a video cassette in which they have voiced their concerns over the referendum as well as their love of the province of Quebec. This is being sent to a secondary school in Quebec.

All Canadians are concerned about the Quebec referendum and its long term effects on Canada. Canada is not whole without Quebec, and it would be in everyone's best interest that Canada remain united.

We should realize that all Canadians, from the youngest to the oldest, have an enormous stake in the country. Our youth are concerned. They have every right to be. The rest of their lives hangs in the balance of the referendum. Canada's youth should not be overlooked or disregarded.

Customs And Excise October 2nd, 1995

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue.

Canadians expect a lot from Canada Customs in its responsibility for our international border. On the one hand we expect it to keep our streets and communities safe from smuggled guns, drugs and pornography. On the other hand we expect customs to speed the passage of tourists and goods into Canada because tourism and trade mean jobs in this country.

What is the Minister of National Revenue doing to improve service at Canada's borders?

Immigration Act September 28th, 1995

Madam Speaker, I rise with pride to endorse Bill C-316 and to offer congratulations to my colleague the member for Cambridge who recognized a problem that exists in the system as we have it today. He has dealt with it in such a way that it looks as though with the endorsement of the House it will go on to become law.

We would be remiss if we did not reflect a little on why a debate on a private members' bill can become as important as it has in this session. Those who are new here will not see any difference, but those who have been involved in political life and parliamentary procedure in the past years realize that historically private members' bills hardly ever, if ever, have seen the light of day. They have been a medium for debate and probably have established some tone of opinion among parliamentarians, but they had no chance of becoming law.

To the credit of this government, now private members' bills do have a chance to become law and they are subjected to a free vote so that everyone in the House can deliver their opinion. We now have private members' bills, some applying to law and order issues, which have been introduced by thoughtful members of the House and are moving on to become part of our justice system.

It is interesting to note an article which appeared in the Toronto Sun on September 17, written by Sean Durkan of the Ottawa bureau. He talks about the quiet war on crime that is being waged by the present government. It is not big headline grabbing stuff, but little by little the Minister of Justice is clawing away at the loopholes and flaws that are present in the judicial system. He said: ``The Liberal government has actually done more to toughen up the system in two years than the previous Tory government did in nine''. That should go on record to show that the government has taken the issue of law and order very, very seriously.

Laws of this nature do not get introduced and are not made without some reaction to an incident or occurrence. Of course that is the evolution of virtually all law over, above and beyond our Constitution. When bills are passed in the House they are passed because some situation has arisen. This is an evolutionary process. It goes on. We who serve here for our brief time have an opportunity to contribute.

It is only in this 35th Parliament of Canada that we have had the opportunity as private members, or backbenchers as we are called, to be able to make a solid contribution to the way these laws unfold and the way the legislative system progresses. It makes these bills very important to the life of Canada. I know that members as a result assume far more personal responsibility when they introduce bills of this nature.

I would like to congratulate all of the people who participated in the debate. I believe everything that could have been said on this subject has been said. Now is the time for us to take it to the next stage, shepherd it through and ensure that our efforts are not wasted, so we will see in due course in the slowness of the democratic process, this becoming part of our legal system and making a great contribution to it.

Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act September 19th, 1995

My apologies, Mr. Speaker. There is a terrible temptation to get carried away at this end of the House. I am going to have to get stronger glasses to see you.

I hope I have answered the question as well as I can. The evidence was that this was a legitimate cause for concern. It has been aided by the automobile companies, that admittedly will not reveal their sources because of commercial confidentiality. Apparently the statement by the Deputy Prime Minister was leaked. However, it gave us the opportunity to say: Here is the evidence as we know it and in the name of cleaner air we should act on it.

Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act September 19th, 1995

No, and you know why.

Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act September 19th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, the argument that it is an economic or an industry issue is mine. It is one I have put to the House. I have put it to the House proudly because I believe that a crossover into ethanol will be a leg up for agriculture and the economy of the country.

The decision of the Minister of the Environment was based first on evidence of what was happening in the United States. Why would the EPA mandate gasoline containing ethanol in 39 cities? There is quite a wealth of evidence coming down to demonstrate that in the United States at least it was believed there was a problem. This country was faced with this conundrum long before the current government took office.

There is some counter evidence, which might or might not prove valid, but where do we stop the study process? Everything could stand more study. I do believe that a great deal of independent study has been done, so I do not know what independent study would be acceptable to my hon. friend.

Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act September 19th, 1995

We do not know whether or not the U.S. is going to bring back MMT but the fact is that ethanol is a superior product notwithstanding the fact that it will be manufactured in Canada in quantity. I do not think Canadian farmers would dismiss that out of hand and say that it will not help them if MMT remains. They want ethanol gasoline. In southwestern Ontario farmers are clamouring for ethanol gasoline from dealers who do not normally handle them at all.